while demanding your own exclusive sovereignty as you just implied above.

And HOW does demanding equality under the law regardless of race create an exclusive sovereignty other than those three granted in the Constitution? You're the FACT man and you just keep rambling and name calling.

while demanding your own exclusive sovereignty as you just implied above.

And HOW does demanding equality under the law regardless of race create an exclusive sovereignty other than those three granted in the Constitution? You're the FACT man and you just keep rambling and name calling.

Now you're confusing name calling with stating "facts".

_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

At last, dawn breaks over Marblehead. Who knows what this tiny sliver of budding self-awareness might lead to? Perhaps you'll even learn to discuss things in an adult manner, without the constant gusher of childish insults that is your MO.

Trying to seriously discuss anything with you is like bathing in a sewer; it's so not worth the effort.

_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Most people recognize your use of pseudo-science, cherry picking of facts and clear intent to eliminate Native American sovereignty while demanding your own exclusive sovereignty as you just implied above.

When should tribal sovereignty for all trump the sovereignty of one tribe? That's a question many in Indian country are pondering as the U.S. Supreme Court sets its sight on a case that could trump tribal sovereign immunity and off-reservation gaming for all tribes.

Indian country beyond Bay Mills has found itself in a difficult position. The easiest way to make the larger gaming and immunity problems go away would be for Bay Mills to waive its immunity, let Michigan sue it, and then let lower courts decide the immunity issue and/or the legality of the casino. Tribes, lobbyists and Indian legal experts have implored Bay Mills to do something – anything – to keep the case away from this clutch of justices. “Stay away from the Supreme Court!” John Echohawk, director of NARF, and Jefferson Keel, former president of the NCAI, said in a joint commentary released in early September—yes, even if that means waiving sovereign legal immunity, the legal doctrine that prevents a sovereign tribe from being sued without the sovereign tribe's consent and one of the major tenets of tribal sovereignty.

[Note: That's what OIN did in the OIN Foreclosure case because they knew they were going to lose and if they lost, tribes everywhere would lose their sovereign immunity. The sovereign immunity defense was a fluke established by SCOTUS as Common Law. It’s based on the federal trust relationship and without the federal sovereign, which is what the tribal sovereignty depends on as an incompetent ward, then tribes have no real sovereignty. That’s why their lawsuits go nowhere unless the feds join with them. I.e.: Cayuga land claim, Onondaga land claim, . . .

Hopefully the Cayuga are as arrogant as you are and refuse to drop their sovereign immunity in their Foreclosure case. Then say adieu to the tribal sovereignty facade and YOUR racist claim to their "entitlements". ]

Nobody owes you a darn thing. So stop your crybaby whining and get over it.

Usually the biggest racists are the ones that scream racism the most. Right Teonan?

Do you have any evidence to support that hypothesis, or is that statement just another knee-jerk defense of racism to draw attention away from the ugly facts?

That's NOT a rhetorical question. Please feel free to take a stab at explaining away the obvious ludicrousness of your assertion.

The bastardization - yes, bastardization - of racism in 2013 America is out of control. It has become the default go-to for liberals whenever they cannot defend a policy in and of itself. Tragically, it diminishes the concept of real racism - not unlike the boy who cried wolf.

Usually the biggest racists are the ones that scream racism the most. Right Teonan?

Do you have any evidence to support that hypothesis, or is that statement just another knee-jerk defense of racism to draw attention away from the ugly facts?

That's NOT a rhetorical question. Please feel free to take a stab at explaining away the obvious ludicrousness of your assertion.

The bastardization - yes, bastardization - of racism in 2013 America is out of control. It has become the default go-to for liberals whenever they cannot defend a policy in and of itself. Tragically, it diminishes the concept of real racism - not unlike the boy who cried wolf.

Riiight... because Conservatives have such a stellar reputation and spotless historical record of supporting "Equality Under the Law".

Riiight... because Conservatives have such a stellar reputation and spotless historical record of supporting "Equality Under the Law".

I am a registered Democrat but I support Rich Tallcot on the Native American issue because to have a bunch of tiny sovereign Indian nations within the USA with their own laws and tax structure is absolutely ridiculous.

_________________________**** ATTENTION! BAD POLITICIANS ARE ELECTED BY GOOD PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE! ****

Riiight... because Conservatives have such a stellar reputation and spotless historical record of supporting "Equality Under the Law".

I am a registered Democrat but I support Rich Tallcot on the Native American issue because to have a bunch of tiny sovereign Indian nations within the USA with their own laws and tax structure is absolutely ridiculous.

And I'm saying that if you lay down with dogs, you get fleas.

I can appreciate that you may have differing opinions than I over the issue of tribal tax laws. But to disregard the despicable and well-documented motives of him and his associates, is to be complicit of FAR greater offensives than those you purport to be advocating against, plain and simple.

You are in other words "curing the disease by killing the patient".

_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Riiight... because Conservatives have such a stellar reputation and spotless historical record of supporting "Equality Under the Law".

Ah, yes...the historical record. Educate yourself on the aggregated percentages, aye and nay, by party, on this hugely important part of that record. If you can put aside your feelings long enough to actually look at facts, that is:

Riiight... because Conservatives have such a stellar reputation and spotless historical record of supporting "Equality Under the Law".

Ah, yes...the historical record. Educate yourself on the aggregated percentages, aye and nay, by party, on this hugely important part of that record. If you can put aside your feelings long enough to actually look at facts, that is:

The links I posted previously have some insight on the subject will put to rest some of your preconceived notions about party support of equal rights during the sixties.

Another point you may want to keep in mind is that the argument you're attempting to assert, happened a half century ago and most everything about party politics since then has no bearing on them today. To suggest that conservative political history over the past 50 years is not replete with discrimination in ways that dwarf similar actions by liberal politics, is obscenely false.

Facts of the kind you provided are meaningless without context.

_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Riiight... because Conservatives have such a stellar reputation and spotless historical record of supporting "Equality Under the Law".

Ah, yes...the historical record. Educate yourself on the aggregated percentages, aye and nay, by party, on this hugely important part of that record. If you can put aside your feelings long enough to actually look at facts, that is:

The links I posted previously have some insight on the subject will put to rest some of your preconceived notions about party support of equal rights during the sixties.

Another point you may want to keep in mind is that the argument you're attempting to assert, happened a half century ago and most everything about party politics since then has no bearing on them today. To suggest that conservative political history over the past 50 years is not replete with discrimination in ways that dwarf similar actions by liberal politics, is obscenely false.

Facts of the kind you provided are meaningless without context.

Yes VM: remember what happened half a century ago in politics does not count because Timmy says so. But what happened over two hundred years ago is different because that is what the land claims were based on. Hah. Talk about selective history. Wow.

Yes VM: remember what happened half a century ago in politics does not count because Timmy says so. But what happened over two hundred years ago is different because that is what the land claims were based on. Hah. Talk about selective history. Wow.

Oh, really? Where exactly? Oh right... I DIDN"T, and you sir are a bald-faced liar. Perhaps you'd care to defend your idiotic claims by disproving any part of my previous post. Good luck, you're gonna need it,

Apparently the only way you feel you can make your case is to misquote others, revise history or simply fabricate the facts.

Take note folks, this is the type of sleazy individual promoting the racist agendas of UCE, CERA and CERF.

Next up... "The Comical Confabulations and Contortions of the Amazing Mr. Tallcot"!

_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.